Ailing S.Sudan president prepares volatile succession
Kiir returned from at least 10 days in the United Arab Emirates on Wednesday, with state media saying he had been 'exploring new avenues for economic cooperation.'
But members of his entourage, speaking on condition of anonymity, previously told AFP he was there for medical tests — reinforcing long-held concerns about the 73-year-old's health.
The world's youngest country, South Sudan has been plagued by poverty and violence since gaining independence in 2011, including a civil war that killed some 400,000 people in 2013-2018.
After a few relatively calm years, the country has been thrown back into turmoil in recent months, prompted, say analysts, by Kiir's declining health and his efforts to install his heir-apparent, businessman Benjamin Bol Mel, in power.
Bol Mel is a controversial figure, who gained prominence as a construction magnate and was said to handle the Kiir family's finances.
He was placed on a sanctions list by the United States in 2017 for corruption.
For months, Kiir has been manoeuvring to sideline rivals.
His old foe, Riek Machar, against whom he fought the civil war, was placed under house arrest in March and many of his political allies disappeared into detention.
Kiir's forces have attacked Machar's military bases and other armed groups drawn from his ethnic group, the Nuer.
More than 700 people were killed in clashes between January and March alone, according to the United Nations.
Rumours about Kiir's health have long circulated but the topic is absolutely off-limits for discussion in official circles.
'If you want to visit a grave quickly, talk about it,' said a local activist, requesting anonymity for safety reasons.
Nonetheless, the frailty was obvious in April when Kiir hosted Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who walked briskly despite his 80 years while Kiir moved in tiny steps.
In May, the foreign ministry had to issue a statement assuring that the head of state was still alive following rumors to the contrary on social media.
State media footage of Kiir's return from the UAE on Wednesday cut away every time he was about to take a step.
During his absence, it was Bol Mel — who was named second vice president in February and deputy head of the ruling party in May — who chaired last week's cabinet meeting.
'It seems to be a script written a long time ago and being implemented in phases,' said Wani Michael, a former activist now in exile.
'They had to take away Riek Machar to pave the way for Bol Mel because... Riek would give Bol Mel a hard time,' he added.
In October, Kiir also fired his intelligence chief, Akol Koor, another potential rival who held that post for 13 years.
Bol Mel 'has taken control of the security forces by installing loyalists. He has taken over the security and financial apparatus since last November-December,' said a diplomat based in Juba, also speaking on condition of anonymity.
Despite an uptick in violence, the moves have not triggered renewed war as many feared.
'It's devastating on a humanitarian level, but it's nothing compared to the colossal massacres of a few years ago when thousands died each month,' said the diplomat, adding that the government 'has been fairly successful in subduing the various rebellions.'
Machar's forces have barely retaliated to attacks and his party is split on the way forward.
But success is not guaranteed for Bol Mel, either, warned local analyst James Boboya.
'The government has not gained legitimacy at home or internationally,' he told AFP.
There is particular disillusionment at the failure to hold the country's first-ever elections, which were again postponed last year to 2026.
'Elections are the only viable way for a peaceful transfer of power,' said Edmund Yakani, president of the Community Empowerment for Progress Organization, a local NGO.
'We need the power of our vote in shaping the future. Not the bullet, and not leaders imposed on us.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asharq Al-Awsat
11 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
US Supreme Court Approves Deportation of Migrants to South Sudan
The US Supreme Court on Thursday gave the green light for the Trump administration to deport a group of migrants stranded at an American military base in Djibouti to war-torn South Sudan. The decision by the conservative-dominated top court comes 10 days after it cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries that are not their own. The eight migrants were being flown to South Sudan from the US in May but ended up in Djibouti when a district court imposed a stay on third-country deportations. The court said migrants were not being given a "meaningful opportunity" to contest removal. On June 23, the Supreme Court lifted the stay imposed by District Judge Brian Murphy, clearing the way for third-country deportations. But Murphy, an appointee of former president Joe Biden, said the case of the eight migrants who ended up in Djibouti was subject to a separate stay order he issued that had not been addressed by the Supreme Court. On Thursday, the Supreme Court said its June 23 decision applied to both of the judge's orders. Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision. "What the Government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death," Sotomayor said. "Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial," she said. The US authorities have said that the eight men -- two from Myanmar, two from Cuba, and one each from Vietnam, Laos, Mexico and South Sudan -- are convicted violent criminals. The Trump administration has defended third-country deportations as necessary since the home nations of some of those who are targeted for removal sometimes refuse to accept them. Donald Trump campaigned for president promising to expel millions of undocumented migrants from the United States, and he has taken a number of actions aimed at speeding up deportations since returning to the White House in January.
Al Arabiya
19 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Supreme Court Clears Way for Deportation to South Sudan of Several Immigrants With No Ties There
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties. The decision comes after the court's conservative majority found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. The court's latest decision makes clear that the South Sudan flight can complete the trip weeks after it was detoured to a naval base in Djibouti. There, the migrants, who had previously been convicted of serious crimes, were held in a converted shipping container. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the high court lifted his broader decision. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said federal authorities would complete the trip to South Sudan by the next day. The Supreme Court majority wrote that their decision on June 23 completely halted Murphy's ruling and also rendered his decision on the South Sudan flight unenforceable. The court did not fully detail its legal reasoning on the underlying case, as is common on its emergency docket. Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, saying the ruling gives the government special treatment. 'Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,' Sotomayor wrote. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that while she disagreed with the original order, it does countermand Murphy's findings on the South Sudan flight. The eight migrants could face imprisonment, torture, and even death in South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war. 'We know they'll face perilous conditions and potentially immediate detention upon arrival,' Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said Thursday. The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by the Trump administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the US illegally. The Trump administration has called Murphy's finding 'a lawless act of defiance.' McLaughlin said the Supreme Court's intervention is 'a win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people.' Attorney General Pam Bondi called Murphy 'a rogue district court judge' and said the justices had rebuked him. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can't quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of crimes in the US and had final orders of removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have said. Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, didn't prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country, even if they've already exhausted their legal appeals. The men and their guards have faced rough conditions on the naval base in Djibouti, where authorities detoured the flight after Murphy found the administration had violated his order by failing to allow them a chance to challenge the removal. They have since said they're afraid of being sent to South Sudan, Realmuto said.
Arab News
21 hours ago
- Arab News
US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight
WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump's administration in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting on Thursday limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan. The court on June 23 put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy's April 18 injunction requiring migrants set for removal to so-called 'third countries' where they have no ties to get a chance to tell officials they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out. The court on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision also extended to Murphy's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. The US State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation 'due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.' Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision. The court said that Murphy should now 'cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order.' Murphy's May 21 order mandating further procedures for the South Sudan-destined migrants prompted the US government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-US citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety. After the Supreme Court lifted Murphy's April injunction on June 23, the judge promptly ruled that his May 21 order 'remains in full force and effect.' Calling that ruling by the judge a 'lawless act of defiance,' the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its action applied to Murphy's May 21 decision as well. Murphy's ruling, the Justice Department said in court filings, has stalled its 'lawful attempts to finalize the long-delayed removal of those aliens to South Sudan,' and disrupted diplomatic relations. Its agents are being 'forced to house dangerous criminal aliens at a military base in the Horn of Africa that now lies on the borders of a regional conflict,' it added. Even as it accused the judge of defying the Supreme Court, the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders including in the third-country deportation litigation. The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal members dissented from the June 23 decision pausing Murphy's injunction, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor calling it a 'gross abuse' of the court's power that now exposes 'thousands to the risk of torture or death.' After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there 'without the need for further procedures.' Murphy found that the administration's policy of 'executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims' likely violates due process requirements under the US Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The Justice Department on Tuesday noted in a filing that the administration has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the aliens at issue will not be subject to torture.' The Supreme Court has let Trump implement some contentious immigration policies while the fight over their legality continues to play out. In two decisions in May, it let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.
